A number of those comments have contained partial quotes from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s order requiring Mr Phillips to undergo court-ordered brain-washing, ie, “staff training.” The order also included demands that he re-write his business’ policy and file quarterly reports.

Here, for those who are interested, is a photo of the original order in its entirety.

67 responses to “If You Want to Read the Commission’s Order to the Colorado Baker, Here It Is”

They’re not “wedding cakes” though, unless they have words on them to that effect. Otherwise they’re just “white tiered cakes.” Shop owners don’t get to scrutinize buyers based on how the product might be used once it leaves the store. The act of making someone a white tiered cake…has not yet crossed the line into a determinate act of expression.

Very interesting. I note the language in paragraph 1 is that the baker must “cease and desist from discriminating against … same sex couples by refusing to sell them … any product [they] would sell to heterosexual couples.” They are focusing on the cake as a product. From what I’ve read on the internet, most who side with bakers don’t see it as merely the sale of a product, but as participation in a wedding service.

The cake is indeed just a product—I hadn’t thought of that. If he was a jeweler would he have refused to sell them a ring that looked like a “wedding” band because he didn’t agree with the use of the ring?

Almost, but we’re not talking about ‘refusing to sell a ring’, it’s about deciding to say no when asked to go make a ring. One situation is outside the jeweler’s rights the other is not. The two are being conflated because the actual illegal behavior has not occurred, but we want to punish the jeweler anyway because he has the wrong moral views.

If the jeweler was asked to make a round ring, and was told it was to be a wedding band and the couple was SS, is he allowed to refuse to make it? Not IMO. He is shaping a hunk of gold (let’s assume) into a round band. The use of that band is not his concern as he wouldn’t be attending or residing over the ceremony. He is making and selling a product.

If by “religious behavior” you mean discriminating against sexual behavior, then you are right. You can tell people they cannot perform sex acts in your bakery. If you mean discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation, no can do. Note: you can’t discriminate against people based on their religion either. If you do, you will likely be issued the same kind of order. If you want to run a business, you have to do it in compliance with the law and you are responsible for training your employees to do so. This isn’t some kind of government intrusion into religion. And it is just common decency anyway. The customer is always right. Business 101.

That’s not an answer to Brian’s question. You basically have stated [it’s discrimination because it’s discrimination].
He can’t ‘weasel’ out of the charge because in this case the prosecuting authority obviously doesn’t even have to recognize Phillips’ basic rights and freedoms or even make any accounting for whether his rights and freedoms are violated in consideration of their decision. He can’t ‘weasel’ out of the charge because his only offense is that he chooses not to participate in a gay wedding which is not illegal in the first place. How can you legally defend yourself against a charge that is not based on the law? How do you defend yourself when the prosecutor is the judge and you don’t have an actual hearing?

Apparently because the PROSPECTIVE customers are gay they have the right to walk into a bakery and order the baker to go back to the kitchen and make them a cake the way they want it even if he doesn’t want to. That’s a new law that I’ve never heard of.
If Phillips was a wedding planner I suppose we would all agree that he is not allowed to refuse a gay couple. The very fact that patrons (if gay) attempt to hire him renders it legally obligatory that he say yes. In fact, if the lesbian couple wanted him to decorate the hall with dildos hanging from the ceiling than he is obviously violating their human rights if he refuses.

As I’ve raised time and again, if you replace the gay couple with white supremicists asking for a ‘White Power’ cake, or if you are talking about an atheist photographer who might choose not to work a Catholic wedding then everyone seems to change their tune. You have a right to your opinion and your religion so long as the government authority and majority opinion agrees it is the RIGHT opinion. Wow, how far you have fallen America!

Surely the Roman Catholic Church has the resources to help the besieged baker with his fight against satanic wickedness….PLEASE HELP HIM..HE NEEDS A GREAT DEAL OF CASH WITH LITIGATION COSTS..WE NEED A REAL CRUSADE TO STAND UP FOR OUR RIGHTS TO OPPOSE THESE WICKED AUTHORITIES…

Satanic wickedness to treat others with kindness even when you disagree with them? Wow.

Does the baker bake cakes for baptist weddings? Those aren’t valid under catholic teaching. Does the baker sell cookies to gluttons? Does he bake cakes for bar mitzvahs? Does he sell cakes to democrats, who vote for evil things like abortion?

My great, great grandparents came from Ireland, to meet signs that read “Help wanted. Irish need not apply.” Discrimination is bad for us individually and as a society. We will never agree with everyone. We just have to be kind.

Would you please provide the source showing the Catholic Church teaches Baptist weddings are not valid?
You also seem to be combining events and people in your argument. Weddings and bar mitzvahs are events. Democrats and gluttons are people. Discrimination towards events is one thing, towards people is another. The events you mentioned are not evil. In and of themselves, there is no reason to decline to serve them. Selling cookies to gluttons could be tantamount to selling beer to alcoholics, but not necessarily and depends on many factors.
However, refusing to serve Democrats because they vote for abortion could be a valid point as they are advocating for the reduction of his prospective customers .
Being kind does not mean supporting them in immoral or disordered activities rather to discourage them from such things.

Seriously, being ordered to obey a law that says treat all customers equally and fairly is an injustice? Being told to train your employees to obey the law is an injustice? The injustice is treating people unfairly.

That’s the order in its entirety? All employees must receive training as to their legal responsibilities? Progress must be reported quarterly? Reports must include record of customers refused service and why?

How does this compare to totalitarian communist re-education camps? Is teaching compliance with the law “re-education”?

People have free will to exercise their rights to refuse services: no shoes, no shirt, no service. If a true Christian refuse to bake a wedding cake for a sodomy marriage (two guys doing it in the rear is NOT a marriage BUT a mental disorder), then he or she should have that right to not celebrate a MENTAL DISORDER (because people misusing their sexual organs to the point of getting AIDS, HIV, HPV, etc. is (wait for it liberal)—–BAD! Now why is this BAD? For why should Christians become ENABLERS to INSANITY? Shouldn’t we live in REALITY, Bill? Because we don’t want diseases to be spreading around, Bill. This whole mind control or YOU WILL LOSE YOUR BUSINESS is ‘re-education.’

April, the reason for allowing Mr Phillips to refuse to participate in a same-sex wedding is that he has a right as a person and an American not to be coerced into violating his own moral code. The sexual activity adults freely choose to engage in in private is not part of the question.

I disagree Rebecca that the baker is being coerced into anything. He sells his baking skills and in this case, cake making abilities to the public. SS couples are part of the paying public. The cake leaves the store and it is used as the people who requested it wish to use it. The baker isn’t attending the ceremony nor is he giving approval to anything. His cake, IMO, is no different than the drinks bought for the cerebration or the rings used in it. Just my opinion. As to whether the couple should have sued? They wished not to be treated differently because of who they are. If he sells to the gay population ( I think it was mentioned that he did—correct me if I’m wrong) then it would have been expected, I think, that to ask him to make a cake for a wedding celebration would have been OK.

Well, why don’t we turn the table around then?
Would it be fair for a homosexual baker to be forced into baking a cake that said: “Homosexual marriage is an abomination.” And this must be printed right on the cake. If the traditional marriage group wanted this cake for their pep rally, would it be fair the homosexual baker to bake this cake?

That would be a very different cake request. Who the heck would request that? Also, as far as we know, the baker in this situation didn’t have to write anything on the cake. But again, the baker you mentioned was selling to the public—Cake is product.and if the “traditional marriage group” wanted that—why not? He/she doesn’t have to agree with the words. He/she can know that as soon as the cake is cut—the words will be destroyed. 🙂

Yes. If a christian group asked a gay baker for a cake stating that homosexuality is an abomination, yes the baker should bake that cake, and decorate it. If a church asked an atheist for a cake to celebrate a person’s conversion from atheism to christianity, the atheist would need to make the cake. That is how equal treatment works.

In the short term, atheists and gays have been on the wrong end of discrimination, so as a group they are more likely to take equality seriously and agree to the cakes. There will always be exceptions. And as time passes, humans being human, someone will forget that equality means everyone and we will go through the battles again.

That is why the courts and judges that defend the constitution are so important. If a christian were denied service, they would have a right to sue.
And groups such as ACLU and FFRF would defend you. I know that in
these cases I would be on the side of the christian.

A christian should be able to walk into a bakery and order a cake, any cake. No one should be sent from store to store looking for a baker with the right personal opinions.

I agree with you, however, adults freely engaging in weird sexual delusional clown act doing it in the rear (which God forbid) is an abomination. However, when this private act (sodomy) is promoted in schools then I have a problem with this, big time. Children should not be taught harmful things that will endanger them physically, mentally, and spiritually.

April S., is it any of your business what 2 consenting adults do in private? You may not agree with it, but it really is none of your business if it doesn’t involve you. Plenty of diseases have been spread by heterosexuals, haven’t they? How is selling a cake to a SS couple “enable” anything? It is a product that is purchased. The rings used in the ceremony are a product. Don’t sell a ring to someone who might want to use it as a symbol of a SS union—that would “enable” the folks using that line of thought. Should the person selling the ring ask how it might be used? Should the clerk ask if a bottle of wine or champagne is going to be consumed at a SS wedding every time a bottle is sold? A cake is a cake, as I have said before—a product, just like the rings or the drinks that are sold for the occasion.

I thought he was trying to abstain from participating in or adding to a ceremony (behavior) not an orientation.
Bill you seem to use behavior and orientation interchangeably. I am orientated to sleep with any moderately attractive woman but believe me my wife appreciates that my behavior and orientation are opposite.

I see this thinking often among friends and I am curious if you do see orientation and behavior as the same thing? Actually this is fascinating to me.

Since god’s word is perfect and eternal and not subject to change or interpretation, would the baker bake a cake for a greedy, overweight man in a cotton-polyester blend t-shirt, who plans to serve bacon wrapped shrimp at the celebration of his tenth tattoo on a Sunday? Before you make everyone else obey your book, it would help if you obeyed every word yourself.

Lark62, I’ve allowed quite a few strong statements with ugly contentions about the Church from you because you were raising issues that no one else was bringing to the table. However, please do not make personal criticisms of the other people who come to Public Catholic to discuss things.

I’ve tried to avoid personal comments, although many have been directed at me (mostly on a different thread.) But my comment, although stated as an extreme example, is serious. Many old testament laws are ignored by modern christians as silly (no bacon), many are acknowledged as reasonable but violating them is forgivable (don’t cuss, don’t be greedy), but only one (or very few) are punished with shunning.

I honestly do not understand the certainty of knowing God’s opinion on this one issue. I respect that as individuals you reject homosexuality. But gay marriage provides real legal protections to real people. Real people are legal strangers to their own children and cannot ok emergency medical treatment.

I honestly do not understand why christians are able to live and let live in so many areas, but have a different standard here.

Mrs. Hamilton, I am truly appalled. Your insistance in subverting the facts of the ruleing are unconscionable. I had composed a comment berating your behaviour..but then deleted it. Now I just truly, TRULY want to understand your motivation for makeing such statements. Then again perhaps I don’t want to know.

I don’t know if you’ll let this pass your filter, or if you’ll even care. I’m just genuinely disterbed and saddened by this.

Caspian, I am not appalled or anything, but I am curious. Why can’t you focus on issues instead of people?
Also, if you find it so disturbing to read my posts, then my advice is that you do yourself a favor and don’t read them.

Well … as a for instance, the issue under question in most comments on these two posts about the Colorado baker is whether and how First Amendment Freedom of Religion applies to situations concerning the 1964 Civil Rights Act and its various interpretations, including recent interpretations applying to homosexuals. Larded onto that is the question of whether or not local and state statutes enacting various civil rights commissions or some similar government construct cancel out First Amendment Freedom of Religion.

I’m being more specific than the commentary that has shown up on this post so far, but those are the underlying issues for most of it.

Notice, these are an ISSUES. They are not about specific people, and will not be resolved, or (at least on this blog) discussed by attacking and belittling other people.

If you can’t address these issues or read this kind of discussion without it upsetting you to the point that you are overwhelmed with being “appalled,” then for your own good, you need to avoid blogs like this one.

I’m talking about attacking people and their viewpoints Caspian. You can’t seem to stop doing that.

Your comments talk about what you think of other people’s views on issues, and of the other person themselves, and how all this affects you in some hyper emotional way that your comments tend to label as moral rather than what it is: hyper emotional. Your commentary does this instead of talking about the issues at hand.

Now, you’re making a comment labeling viewpoints that you don’t agree with as “demonizing.” It is not “demonizing” to have a viewpoint that others disagree with. It might be “demonizing” to persistently sling this kind of rhetoric at others for no good reason. I haven’t thought about it enough to know what I think in that regard. It is certainly taxing and annoying and it does not address anything at all.

You’ve taxed me with repeated critiques about my supposed moral/literary/etc failings, as if that matters or has anything to say about anything.

Can you, do you even know how to, talk about issues and not people?

I’m going to start deleting your comments just because I’m tired of this nonsense if you don’t stop it.

One thing to consider is the impact of peer pressure. I’m not sure if that is the perfect phrase, but I’ll try to explain. Sometimes, once one person has made a political statement, everyone else then sees their decision on the issue as approval / disapproval, and is afraid of being judged accordingly.

For example, Jessica Ahlquist in Rhode Island objected to a prayer banner in a public school. She received death threats, had to be home schooled etc. When the case was decided in Jessica’s favor, an organization wanted to send her flowers. They called a local florist, who contacted a florist in Rhode Island to deliver the flowers. The first florist contacted, instead of just delivering flowers, said “No. We stand against what Jessica did.” After them, three other florists declined. (The flowers were eventually delivered by a Connecticut florist.) It’s possible that one wanted to deliver the flowers, but saying yes after others said no was too dangerous to their business. If the first florist had just delivered the flowers, no one would have given it any thought. It was just flowers.

This is one of the advantages of the law. No one gets to assume that the business is making a political statement of approval or disapproval.

I used to live in RI, but had moved before the Jessica Ahlquist situation happened. I tend to agree with you that if the first florist had just delivered flowers, as they are again (like the baker) a public business, there wouldn’t have been a fuss. Perhaps the 1 florist’s refusal did intimidate the others to not sell to the organization—which is sad. Flowers, like a cake, is a product and flower shops sell a product. RI is, as everyone knows, a very small state, and from my experience there, conservative. I found it similar to living in a medium size town—-which has its’ good points and not so good points too. It would have been found out quickly just which shop (s) had sent or not sent flowers to Jessica. There could have been some fall out but like everything else, would have been forgotten in a short time.